The year is 1180, Manuel I has passed away, depressed by his (relatively inconsequential) defeat at Myriocephalon in 1176 as well as his isolation from the West following the Peace of Venice concluded in 1177. Despite these setbacks, would the Empire have been able to still resume the offensive against the Turks in Anatolia if Manuel had an adult heir (say OTL's Bela III of Hungary, who came close to inheriting the Empire if not for the birth of Alexios II in 1169)?
Even with the defeat in 1176, it appears as though Manuel's achievement in Anatolia, the securing of the coastal regions via a policy of fortification, remains intact in 1180 at his death (thus bequeathing strength to OTL's Empire of Nicaea). Dorylaeum, Manuel's greatest Anatolian conquest, appears to still have been in Roman hands in 1180 due to Manuel's refusal to honor all of the terms of the Byzantine-Seljuq treaty that followed the debacle of 1176. Furthermore, the evidence from the primary sources seems to indicate that the Army remained almost entirely intact by 1180...
With a strong heir such as Bela III, could the Romans resume the offensive against the Turks after a break, say of 10 years?...just in time to take advantage of Frederick Barbarossa's march through Anatolia and conquer Konya.
Thus my questions:
Was Dorylaeum (an important outpost on the Anatolian plateau) still in Roman hands at Manuel's death in 1180?
Could a stronger heir such as Bela III, focused on the East due to his strong dynastic relations with Hungary, have rectified Manuel's policies and resumed the offensive against the Seljuqs?
Could the Romans in such a scenario have taken advantage of the 3rd Crusades' wildly successful march through Anatolia to reconquer Konya from the seljuqs, avenging Manuel's defeat?
The more I read the more I believe that Manuel's greatest defeat was not Myriocephalon, which did not compromise the Empire's Anatolian territories, but was instead his failure to produce a strong heir...a failure that is on par with that of Basil II in 1025.
Even with the defeat in 1176, it appears as though Manuel's achievement in Anatolia, the securing of the coastal regions via a policy of fortification, remains intact in 1180 at his death (thus bequeathing strength to OTL's Empire of Nicaea). Dorylaeum, Manuel's greatest Anatolian conquest, appears to still have been in Roman hands in 1180 due to Manuel's refusal to honor all of the terms of the Byzantine-Seljuq treaty that followed the debacle of 1176. Furthermore, the evidence from the primary sources seems to indicate that the Army remained almost entirely intact by 1180...
With a strong heir such as Bela III, could the Romans resume the offensive against the Turks after a break, say of 10 years?...just in time to take advantage of Frederick Barbarossa's march through Anatolia and conquer Konya.
Thus my questions:
Was Dorylaeum (an important outpost on the Anatolian plateau) still in Roman hands at Manuel's death in 1180?
Could a stronger heir such as Bela III, focused on the East due to his strong dynastic relations with Hungary, have rectified Manuel's policies and resumed the offensive against the Seljuqs?
Could the Romans in such a scenario have taken advantage of the 3rd Crusades' wildly successful march through Anatolia to reconquer Konya from the seljuqs, avenging Manuel's defeat?
The more I read the more I believe that Manuel's greatest defeat was not Myriocephalon, which did not compromise the Empire's Anatolian territories, but was instead his failure to produce a strong heir...a failure that is on par with that of Basil II in 1025.